Friedman in the news: There's no such thing as a free lunch

In May of 2009 the U.S. government created a program that would make it easier for workers to receive benefits while unemployed. Apparently this government program was supposed to give job search allowances, relocation allowances and even better retraining programs. The reason why it does not work is the fact that only a certain group of people can benefit from this program -the government provides a certain requirement in which one could qualify. The Trade Adjustment Assistance program is supposed to address the higher cost incurred when searching for a job or if one needed to relocate. The government wants to focus on retraining the U.S. workforce to compete with global jobs especially for those high tech jobs, but how do you does this work for everyone? You cannot retrain an out of job furniture maker to learn about the technological advances that is happening today through an eight week course-which is what this program provides.
This is a prime example of what Milton Friedman would call not only ridiculous, but also an example of how government should have limited power towards our total freedom. Friedman would see this TAA program as a joke, and as a waste of tax payer’s money and time. Friedman would argue not only is this program ridiculous, but that the lack of jobs and the economic struggle that we are going through can only be determined through the market. By creating a program like TAA, the government thinks they are helping and granting the people who are struggling in this country through some sort of “way out” and into a better tomorrow, but in reality it is about the government not doing enough and not seeing the real issues that people are facing. Friedman once said, “There is no such thing as a free lunch” and clearly the government knows this in the back of their heads but is telling their citizens that everything will be alright. Allowing the natural flow of a free market will determine what jobs people should retrain themselves in and what jobs should and shouldn’t exist. Friedman would disagree with any form of subsidies created by the government, because it is for the market to decide.
There is truth in what Friedman would argue about with this TAA program and there is proof that since May of 2009 the program has not actually produced any positive outcome. Realistically the program does not benefit a good portion of the unemployed population, and the government is still blinded by the need to compete in the global market. We need to help our workers and small business owners. The important thing to remember is that we all need to take care of our country first and focus on our domestic market before resuming to the dynamic environment of the international market.


AFL-CIO.org

Marx in the News: Warren Buffet's answer to capitalism

Warren Buffet is well known for his unique approach to business, and his suggestion of using Import Certificates (IC's) may just work. His idea is motivated by the trade deficit the United States owes mainly to China. He believes that through this form of exchange, it not only help the United States, it will also benefit all those who wish to trade with the United States. Ideally, this will create some sort of equilibrium when it comes to importing and exporting. What Warren Buffet is doing is slowing down the intense competition in international trade and business. He is suggesting we all take a deep breath and slow down, and allow ourselves to catch up to the competition.

Marx was right when he talked about the division of labor. Not only would industrialists compete amongst each other, but since machines were doing most of the labor, a worker's time has less worth therefore workers would have to also compete amongst themselves.

What does this all have to do with the U.S. trade deficit? Everything. If the whole world is trading with each other, and if every nation is answering to supply and demand, the United States is having a difficult time competing.

Throughout the world production increases and wages go down, competition amongst industrialist has created an antagonism between the worker and the employer. Due to innovation and advanced technology, jobs have become scarce. All of this because of competition.

As Marx said competition is part of the natural way of an economy, but Warren Buffet is suggesting we create some sort of limit for ourselves so that we can catch up to the rest of the world.

As of 2007, America owes China $900 billion. Warren Buffet is informing us that we export about $80 billion a month, and if we use these ICs, it would issue U.S. Exporters the same amount, $80 billion ICs. Which could be bought by others, depending on competition?

Locke may not agree with this idea, because these certificates will have a short life-about six months so that no one is motivated to just accumulate them and store them.

I believe Warren Buffet is on the right track. There is confusion and an intense insanity that is going on in the world market due to all of the new innovations and advanced technology and I believe Marx knew this as well.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/11/10/352872/index.htm

Locke in the News: David Letterman's Top Ten Signs

Locke talked about money, “This is certain, That in the beginning, before the desire of having more than Men needed, had altered the intrinsick value of things, which depends only on their usefulness to the Life of Man; (Men) had agreed, that a little piece of yellow Metal, which would keep without waste or decay, should be worth a great piece of Flesh-"

Today not only among business people, people in general think about money. Money is the source which gives us all a roof over our heads, food; receive better education, and anything else that we may need to survive. For many, the lack of money means troubled times and hardships. The younger generations are being told that they have to start saving money now, in order to live a good life in the future. Today the exchange of money has become so different compared to how Locke witnessed it, but relative to Locke’s argument, the way people use money today depends on how much the world has changed and how money has become a nescessity for survival.

David Letterman is known for his top ten list and although the comedian pokes fun at issues that one may take seriously, there is an underlying truth to the ten signs that one may have too much money. The most laughable reason was “Someone mentions the reccession, you say ‘The What?’.” Letterman sheds light on the fact that there people in this world who have money and value it as something they have laying to around and can easily dispose of. According to Locke, one can have as much money as one would want because it does not spoil. The people whom Letterman is poking fun at technically aren’t doing anything wrong according to Locke’s theory, but do people really need to have so much money? How would Locke argue the mindset of a person who has so much money that they become so unaware of those who lack such luxury?

Locke could argue that one has a right to however much money one could have because it will not go to waste, and that one has put labor in order to receive that money, but should there be a limit? Or at least an awareness of how one should behave with their money? Letterman’s hidden message is that although one can acquire as much money as one desires, it is also essential for that individual to be aware of their social responsibility to those who lack such fortune. Locke believed that as long as one puts labor into something, and produces that into something that could be exchanged for something like money then one should remember to give back and essentially act in a way in which people help one another.

When it comes to the livelihood of people, there should be no reason for anyone especially the younger generations to feel that they cannot attain a good future because they do not have enough money. Money has created greed and ignorance, which has caused a barrier to those who are just starting out in the world, and we as human beings must not allow this to happen no matter how much right one has to placing money in their bank account. Money cannot be the reason or the only way one can live a good life. Money cannot be the only way to have a future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJUNlMBLY6A&feature=PlayList&p=AF51B055323A972B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=44

Aristotle in the news

If one were to examine Aristotle's point of view of the art of getting wealth, one should examine what it is like to go beyond what one truly needs in today's world. According to Aristotle, retail trade is the most unnatural way of living. In today's world, globalization is an occurrence and trend that will not diminish any time soon. A political system is typically rooted to a nation's culture, and a business is run according to local values, politics and way of life. One could argue that today, it is most difficult to see how each nation has stayed with their own values and culture while dealing with such a fast paced and dynamic time. Although Aristotle points out that riches is assumed by many to be only a quantity of coin, the philosopher points out that there are two sides to it. Those who partake in today's world exchange market may be considered by Aristotle as being unnatural if all one does is make money and nothing else. Globalization has its pros and cons, and today there are those who feel one way or the other depending on how they use the opportunities of a world market. In a mixed economy like the United States, one's way of life may be affected by how people do business. In history many analysts have said that it is human nature to adapt with the trends of the world. As societies grow, each culture consistently tries to be individualistic from another. Aristotle would agree with this, as was pointed out that although a state has many individuals, it is important to note that a state also has many different types of people. The types of people in today's world may use the art of getting wealth in the two types that Aristotle talked about, one being natural and the other the use of coin and is not natural. Aristotle may not agree with how in the world of business, people have lost the meaning of living well and while the art of gettingn wealth is related to household management, there are those who feel that today the art of getting wealth is limitless. In the United States, we look to our neighboring countries for goods and services. Although times have changed, one cannot ignore the philosophy that Aristotle had about making a symbolic object like a shoe, and making that shoe is not only for the purpose of wearing it, but also using it as a way of making money. The United States is known for their trusted brands all around the world, globalization has allowed the U.S. to posses other ideas and produce higher and more competitive goods and services, but this also means that what Aristotle forewarned us about is true. Today, one may or could assume that the art of getting wealth has been accepted as one should make as much money as possible to live a good life, because if one did not, it would mean difficulties of having shelter, education, food and even entertainment. As mentioned in the book “Free Trade under Fire” by Douglas A. Irwin, Adam Smith knew that giving incentive was a way to better lives. Adam Smith said that by creating wealth through market exchange, we as a people can create a higher standard of living. We as consumers have needs for certain goods or services regardless of where we are and who we were. Globalization has not only allowed people to posses goods and services beyond their own country but that of another, the world market has also given us the world with just one click away by the use of the internet. Obviously, there those who live a good life without a fancy home, and an ivy league education or feel the need to go on a European vacations and go out to bars every night, but the world in which one lives in today can sometimes be difficult to face without feeling or wanting more than one should have.

As with all things in life, the issue of globalization is something dynamic and does not necessarily have a right or wrong answer. There are pros and cons for both developed and underdeveloped countries. The positive side to globalization for everyone is that many problems like the environment, human rights and energy for example do not pay attention to national boundaries as it is a common issue for all, but a more global approach to these problems is still needed. A developing country like the United States are more inclined and tend to be more concerned with these second tier issues, but a developing country like the Philippines may tend more to focus on basic necessities like food, health, security and job availability. Developing countries like the Philippines unfortunately cannot easily come up with solutions to such problems if jobs just keep moving across borders; bad working conditions, pollution, etc. Technology and energy use has its pros and cons as well when it comes to developing countries. Developing countries made mistakes by not ever investing in landline phones or internet, and instead went ahead and joined directly to advanced mobile phone and internet networks. The advanced technology has also created some cons for everyone, as it also has created easier ways to move bad things much faster. The mortgage crisis on Wall Street in the United States created problems for places like the Philippines due to the fact that Filipinos were working minimal wages for those big corporations by exporting goods to the United States.

If Aristotle were living in today's world, the philosopher may see that there are repercussions to all actions, and an even more obvious observation is that retail trade has shown its true colors by greedy actions by those who live beyond what the philosopher would call living well. Aristotle said, "The origin of this disposition in men is that they are intent upon living only, and not upon living well; and, as their desires are unlimited, they also desire that the means of gratifying them should be without limit."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqzrzQRAI9c